Should Obama nominate a justice or not?

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When are you libs going to realize that a do-nothing House and Senate is exactly what we need.

Really?????

....and then, your ilk, bitches when the president utilizes his (or hers) executive order option to get ANYTHING done?

What Ohbummer thinks needs to be done is usually the exact opposite of what this nation needs.

 

[Seawytch]

Next President Should Appoint SC Justice, Not Obama


From IJR:

“Justice Scalia’s fidelity to the Constitution was rivaled only by the love of his family: his wife Maureen his nine children, and his many grandchildren. Through the sheer force of his intellect and his legendary wit, this giant of American jurisprudence almost singlehandedly revived an approach to constitutional interpretation that prioritized the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Scalia family.”

…

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


Use the nuclear option that Democrats used on Obama care to stifle any and all candidates he presents.. I am good with this line of attack on the socialists and their wet dreams of being kings..

I wonder why Mitch didn't say the same thing when he voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee for Reagan in his last year in office.

Hmmmm....what could the difference be?

 

[nat4900]

What Ohbummer thinks needs to be done is usually the exact opposite of what this nation needs.

Is this "conclusion" based....to a large extent.....on the fact that you "think" that Obama is a Kenyan-born Muslim???

 

[Billy_Bob]

You know, but that is not what you said. That's ignorance in its purest form.

Here let me make it CLEAR of what I stated......BOTH republican led chambers have done NOTHING and they BOTH plan to do NOTHING.....

They have stopped your left wing power grab.. I wish they could have done more, but obstructionist Obama wont sign the repeal of odumbacare.. Even 30% of moderate democrats want that abomination repealed.. Trump will get that vote on Day One.. Even democrats are going to elect republicans this time around to get rid of that mess..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Next President Should Appoint SC Justice, Not Obama


From IJR:

“Justice Scalia’s fidelity to the Constitution was rivaled only by the love of his family: his wife Maureen his nine children, and his many grandchildren. Through the sheer force of his intellect and his legendary wit, this giant of American jurisprudence almost singlehandedly revived an approach to constitutional interpretation that prioritized the text and original meaning of the Constitution. Elaine and I send our deepest condolences to the entire Scalia family.”

…

“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”


Use the nuclear option that Democrats used on Obama care to stifle any and all candidates he presents.. I am good with this line of attack on the socialists and their wet dreams of being kings..

I wonder why Mitch didn't say the same thing when he voted to confirm a SCOTUS nominee for Reagan in his last year in office.

Hmmmm....what could the difference be?

It was Scalia.. a strict Constitutionalist! The evidence is clear.. he wanted to keep our Representative Republic.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Christ. It doesn't matter WHO it is, if Obama were to nominate someone, republicans would automatically reject him/her.

Of course you're probably correct....However, the "spectacle" of a do-nothing bunch of republican senators while running for re-election....will be a sight to see and behold.

Everything the republicans have done has stopped and died at OBAMA'S DESK.. Now why would that be? you lying POS

 

[Billy_Bob]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

Christ. It doesn't matter WHO it is, if Obama were to nominate someone, republicans would automatically reject him/her.

I don't think so and history shows you are wrong.

Many Rs voted for Obama's two leftist bitches. The Rs have a long history of approving D nominated SC justices. Goes back decades.

McConnell, who is as prolific a liar as Cankles, will likely do Obama's bidding as he has done for some time now.

Sadly, you are correct. We will see if his actions follow his words soon enough..

 

[eagle1462010]

Obstructionist.

 

[80zephyr]

Again, the House has nothing to do with the topic, so to include them is ignorant of reality.

Well, my humble apologies for having stated a DO=NOTHING "congress" instead of just a DO-NOTHING "senate."

When are you libs going to realize that a do-nothing House and Senate is exactly what we need.

Rejecting a SCOTUS nominee is not a "do nothing" senate. They ARE doing their jobs, according to the Constitution.

If Obama doesn't select a person worthy of passing the nomination process he is the one that is blockading the nomination.

The founders certainly didn't put the senate in the picture to become a rubber stamp method of the presidents choice.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

COTUS is clear, POTUS nominates and the Senate advises and consents to the nomination.

President Obama will do his duty and nominate a replacement for Justice Saclia, and the Senate Republicans, even before said nomination, will begin to assassinate the character of the unknown person as liberal, and one who will allow abortion up to the birth, the confiscation of all firearms from our citizens and the suppression of voting by anyone who has not given their DNA to a government agent.

It's clear, Sen. Cruz said so and he never lies. In fact the Republican's will once again vote in lockstop to deny President Obama his choice, even if Jesus Christ himself appeared with The President in the Rose Garden as his nominee,.

Maybe if a Democrat EVER nominated a moderate, or even a conservative, you might have a point. In recent history Souters and Stevens(who are both liberal) were nominated by Republican presidents.

Thats what I hate about the GOP, they play fair.

Mark

 

[gipper]

COTUS is clear, POTUS nominates and the Senate advises and consents to the nomination.

President Obama will do his duty and nominate a replacement for Justice Saclia, and the Senate Republicans, even before said nomination, will begin to assassinate the character of the unknown person as liberal, and one who will allow abortion up to the birth, the confiscation of all firearms from our citizens and the suppression of voting by anyone who has not given their DNA to a government agent.

It's clear, Sen. Cruz said so and he never lies. In fact the Republican's will once again vote in lockstop to deny President Obama his choice, even if Jesus Christ himself appeared with The President in the Rose Garden as his nominee,.

Have you forgotten what the Ds did to Bork and Thomas?

Or was what they did to those two justices, fair and just in your mind?

 

[Contumacious]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

WE NEED SOMEONE IN THERE WHO WILL PROTECT OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.


.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

COTUS is clear, POTUS nominates and the Senate advises and consents to the nomination.

President Obama will do his duty and nominate a replacement for Justice Saclia, and the Senate Republicans, even before said nomination, will begin to assassinate the character of the unknown person as liberal, and one who will allow abortion up to the birth, the confiscation of all firearms from our citizens and the suppression of voting by anyone who has not given their DNA to a government agent.

It's clear, Sen. Cruz said so and he never lies. In fact the Republican's will once again vote in lockstop to deny President Obama his choice, even if Jesus Christ himself appeared with The President in the Rose Garden as his nominee,.

Have you forgotten what the Ds did to Bork and Thomas?

Or was what they did to those two justices, fair and just in your mind?

Wry and mind = lol

 

[Billy_Bob]

First let me state (and I can say this as a fellow Sicilian-American) that Scalia will be regarded as one of the most acerbic, often mean-spirited, partisan in the modern Supreme Court.

But the question asked should be answered. Should Obama nominate to the Senate his choice to fill Scalia's seat? Bear in mind that there are still 11 months before a new president enters the oval office.

Regardless of the upcoming turbulent months, we should be mindful of the many changes that 2017 will usher to the political status quo: A new President......a new Senate makeup, and, of course, a much different Supreme Court in its ideological leanings.

WE NEED SOMEONE IN THERE WHO WILL PROTECT OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.


.

The right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

There is absolutely no ambiguity in that statement. It denies the governments reach into our right to "keep" arms of all kinds. It also denies the governments over reach into ammunition, powders, and any other item that is need to "BEAR" those arms.

Scalia understood that, others on the court think their feelings over rule the strict construction of the statement. Just as their feeling on the equal protections clause stomp on it to give special groups greater protections and force others to stomp on others rights to give them special treatment. Hate crime legislation, and every other progressive program to place blacks and other special interest groups above everyone else and give them special privileges in hiring decisions ect are abominations.

Our Constitution, taken in its strict construction, deals with all of these problems EQUALLY and FAIRLY.. Only progressive (regressive) fools think that more is needed becasue they have been led to believe that handouts and redistribution are a right..

 

[nat4900]

Rejecting a SCOTUS nominee is not a "do nothing" senate. They ARE doing their jobs, according to the Constitution.

If Obama doesn't select a person worthy of passing the nomination process he is the one that is blockading the nomination.

The founders certainly didn't put the senate in the picture to become a rubber stamp method of the presidents choice.

Mark

Well, Mark....you got it all wrong......I agree that the senate has every constitutional right to reject even Jesus as Obama's nominee......BUT, I'm reacting to every GOP candidate and Sen. McConnell's "warning" for Obama to NOT even come up with a nominee.

 

[nat4900]

WE NEED SOMEONE IN THERE WHO WILL PROTECT OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

What about everyone's absolute right to vote??? You know, even those dark skinned people ......

 

[CowboyTed]

Yes, this President should do as the Constitution says he should do, and appoint a replacement for Scalia.

The next President will already have 3 justices to replace....4 is way too many for one sitting President, for the court to not be considered politically "stacked"....

I would like to see a Moderate, with no political allegiances as they are suppose to be...not too young so they are not on the court the next 50 years, and a female to get the court closer to gender even, but a good moderate male would be good as well...

How about someone who is 50 but promises to retire before he/she is 70?

 

[Billy_Bob]

WE NEED SOMEONE IN THERE WHO WILL PROTECT OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

What about everyone's absolute right to vote??? You know, even those dark skinned people ......

OOoooo Your playing the RACE CARD.. Blacks, Latinos, and every other AMERICAN CITIZEN (male or female) has the right to vote the day they turn 18.. Only convicted felons serving time are not allowed to vote, for good reason.

Your straw man is on fire...

 

[nat4900]

The right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

For all you "caps-challenged" right wingers who massage your guns for sexual gratification, the 2nd amendment actually states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Which means that all you gun-toting charmers should sign up to join a militia and be "well regulated:.........LOL

 

[Contumacious]

WE NEED SOMEONE IN THERE WHO WILL PROTECT OUR ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.

What about everyone's absolute right to vote??? You know, even those dark skinned people ......

I AM A DARK SKINNED PERSON.

THAT IN NO WAY PREVENTS ME FROM SUPPORTING , AND ATTEMPTING TO RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION (1787); CAPITALISM AND THE FREE MARKET.


.